L Glass for video

[appleguy]

Does it make much difference?

I have a 17-40mm L lens on a 5D MkII and Im thinking of getting an ef 28-135 (not L glass)
Will there be a difference in quality between the two?

[hsmoscout]

The same difference that there would be in pictures.

[Lowner]

Back in the 1950's the BBC splashed out a lot of money for high quality lenses and were amazed that the finished product was no better, the limiting factor was never the lens. According to articles I've read its still a common problem and manufacturers these days only improve lens resolution when it needs to be improved, otherwise they cost more for absolutely no benefit.

So maybe try hiring one before you buy to see if the results are as you hope. I imagine video is shot at a lower quality setting than normal photographs?

[LSV]

Reasons for L glass? Heavier (more weight=more stable), better build (good if you have to deal with people pushing you), larger focus rings (easier to find adapters for follow focus, or even just manually), wider apertures (even less DOF), most are between 72 and 77mm, so you just need a step ring rather than different filters for each size. There's also some color, sharpness, and contrast improvements, but those are probably secondary for 99% of users, especially if you plan on doing a lot of pp or action stuff.

[bieber]

Considering that your video is being scaled down from 20+MP to a little over 2, I think you'd have to put a pretty crappy lens on it to notice IQ issues.

[benesotor]

Sharpness isn't really important. You're capping back the resolution loads anyway.

The only advantages L glass will give you are a good focus ring and build, good bokeh and good colour rendition.

Does it make a difference? Well... to some extent, not as much as in still photography for sure.
If you're concentrating solely on video then I can think of lenses that produce just as good if not better results, for much less cost.

[RWatkins]

L series lenses tend to have a larger maximum aperture when comparing the same focal length (or range in the case of zooms). This is useful in getting a desired 'look' when you want it and it allows for shooting at lower light levels (or lower ISO settings) thereby increasing quality of the video. Depending on the conditions, the difference can be significant. For example, if an L seres lens offers a two stop advantage over the comparable non L series, then it could be the difference between shooting at ISO 1600 and ISO 400.

Once you get into the telephoto range, there is not contest with the EF lenses, its either go L seres or go home.

one of the preferred lens for video, the 50mm f/1.4, is not an L seres lens.

[Blitzkraig]

I am pretty new to the whole DSLR video thing and I have been enjoying some experimentation here. I shot some indoor footage of my girlfriend who does some part-time Tv presenting and wanted me to help her with an audition video. I used my 85mm f1.2 L @ f2 and 100 iso for part of it and then shot another part with the 24-105mm f4 @ f4 with at 200 ISO. It's no secret that you get some image degradation with a higher ISO but the difference in picture quality was astonishing. The 85mm was so slick and crisp yet the 24-105mm was very noticeably of a much lower quality......and this is between 2 L series lenses so I have to concur with hsmoscout and use the rule that it's pretty much going to be the same quality as the lenses you use for your stills.